10847175 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Roesner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 31, 2012

10847175 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/847,175 05/17/2004 Kai-Michael Roesner 07781.0133 2725 22852 7590 05/31/2012 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER PHAM, KHANH B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2012 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte KAI-MICHAEL ROESNER and GERALD PATZOLD ____________ Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-54. Claims 55 and 56 have been canceled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for importing source data. See generally Spec. ¶ 001. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method for importing non-executable source data, the method comprising: receiving a selection of the non-executable source data by a user via a graphical user interface; translating the non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable, wherein the translating is based on mappings defined by the user using the graphical user interface; checking the command language commands for at least one of completeness and consistency; executing the command language commands wherein the executed command language commands generate import data; and storing the import data in a database. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Upton US 2003/0093575 A1 May 15, 2003 Chan US 2005/0021348 A1 Jan. 27, 2005 (filed July 21, 2003) ED BOTT & WOODY LEONHARD, SPECIAL EDITION USING MICROSOFT® OFFICE 2000 citing multiple pages between 16-1249 (1999) (“Bott”). Microsoft, New Microsoft Office Family Application Taps Power of Industry-Standard XML 1-21 (2003) (“Microsoft”). 1 Two printed pages of this reference were provided, and these page numbers correspond sequentially to the pages provided. Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 3 Scott Morris, Improve the Performance of the Lotus Connector for SAP 1-72 (May 3, 2004) (“Morris”). THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-17, 19, 35, 37-39, and 41-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bott. Ans. 3-10. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 19-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Morris. Ans. 10-13. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bott and Upton. Ans. 13-14. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 18, 36, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bott, Chan, and Microsoft. Ans. 14-15. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER BOTT Regarding representative independent claim 1, the Examiner maps Bott’s discussion of saving a standard PowerPoint presentation into an Internet Explorer (IE) compatible format that is viewable as an HTML-formatted PowerPoint presentation to the recited step of translating non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable. Ans. 4, 16-17. Similarly, the Examiner maps the discussion of saving Word and Excel documents and worksheets into HTML format that are visible in a browser to the translating step. Ans. 17-18. The Examiner further explains non-executable source data includes an HTML source that requires an interpreter provided by an IE browser to execute and render the HTML source on a display. See Ans. 15-16, 18. 2 Seven printed pages of this reference were provided, and these page numbers correspond sequentially to the pages provided. Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 4 Appellants argue Bott has no relation to the recited “translating” step and fails to teach the incompatible PowerPoint presentation is translated into command language commands that are executable. App. Br. 11-123; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also assert that a PowerPoint presentation file is not executable file and that viewing a PowerPoint presentation in a web browser does not constitute “executing” the presentation. Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants further contend that the Examiner provides no citation that Bott’s rendering step is necessarily a translating step to a graphical representation. Reply Br. 6. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Bott discloses translating non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable? ANALYSIS We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, translating the non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable. We initially note that the phrase, “non-executable,” is not found in the disclosure, and Appellants provide no definition or meaning for this term. Also, Appellants describe source data in the Specification as being in a table format containing data (e.g., object keys, quantities, amount) encoded into fields (Spec. ¶ 038; Fig. 4) or in an R/3 or XML format (Spec. ¶¶ 043, 046, 060, 0061). But, these 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed June 8, 2009, in response to the Order mailed April 29, 2009. Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 5 are non-limiting examples of source data. We therefore give the phrase, “non-executable data source,” its broadest reasonable construction to include numbers, text, or objects in various formats. Bott discloses PowerPoint presentations. See Bott 192. Such presentations contain data in the form of numbers, text, and objects and in a particular format, and these numbers, text, and objects can reasonably be mapped to non-executable data source. Bott’s described presentations therefore contain non-executable source data as broadly as recited. Moreover, Appellants admit this presentation contains non-executable source data. See Reply Br. 5 (stating “a PowerPoint presentation file is not an executable file”). Additionally, Bott discloses saving these documents and presentation in an HTML format, including those compatible with an IE-3 browser. See Bott 192. As explained in more detail below, this HTML formatted version of the presentation also contains text and objects or non- executable source code. Regarding the phrase, “command language commands that are executable,” Appellants describe the source data in Table 2 being processed into command sequences in Table 3, such as commands INS_OBJ and INS_NODE. See Spec. ¶ 063. However, these again are non-limiting illustrations of commands, and the phrase, “command language commands that are executable,” is not limited to these examples. When giving this phrase its broadest reasonable construction, the recited command includes “[a]n instruction to a computer program that, when issued by the user, causes an action to be carried out.”4 4 MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 111 (5th ed. 2002). Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 6 Bott describes viewing the HTML-formatted presentation using an IE 3 or a Netscape Navigator browser. Bott 192. That is, as the Examiner states (Ans. 15-16), Bott discloses rendering or displaying the HTML- formatted document using a browser. See id. While Bott is silent regarding how the browser presents this information, the Examiner finds that the browser’s rendering involves interpreting or translating HTML-formatted PowerPoint presentation (e.g., non-executable source code) into commands or instructions that are then used to display or render the HTML information (e.g., an action to be carried out). See Ans. 15-16. We agree with the Examiner for the following reasons. An ordinary skilled artisan would have known that the web browser (e.g., IE or Netscape) receives web documents (e.g., the HTML-formatted PowerPoint presentation) that include information instructing the browser how to render the document. Rambhia 61.5 In particular, the browser uses a parser to decode and display an HTML document. See id. Thus, the browser translates the HTML source into commands using a parser that are then executed so as to display the HTML code. This knowledge is also illustrated by an artisan’s explanation of how browsers work.6 Specifically, a browser includes a rendering engine that has a parser (e.g., a HTML parser) which parses or translates a document into another structure (see Garsiel 4-12) and processes scripts or executes commands (see Garsiel 10, 13). We therefore find that Bott discloses the claimed invention such that 5 AJAY M. RAMBHIA, XML DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS DESIGN 61 (2002) (“Rambhia”). 6 Tali Garsiel, How Browsers Work, Behind the Scenes of Modern Web Browsers 1-26, available at http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm. Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 7 ordinary artisan can take its teaching combined with his knowledge of the art and be in possession of claim 1. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In attempting to distinguish the Examiner’s position related to Bott from claim 1, Appellants assert that the commands are translated before they enter any interpreter, such as interpreter 160 shown in Figure 6, and the interpreter does not perform the recited translating step. Reply Br. 3. Even if this is true, Appellants also state the parser software module 145 creates the command language. Spec. ¶ 0049. As explained above, Bott similarly takes the non-executable source data and converts the data into commands in order to render the data on a display using a parser or translates the data into command language commands that are executable as broadly as recited and consistent with the disclosure. Lastly, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner combines elements of disclosure with the reference in formulating the rejection. Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner refers to Figures 6 and 7 only to obtain an understanding of the meaning of the recited “non-executable” source data. See Ans. 15-16. The Examiner is not relying on these Figures in formulating the rejection. See Ans. 4. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 5-17, 19, 35, 37-39, and 41-53 not separately argued with particularity. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER MORRIS We reach the opposite conclusion with regard to the anticipation rejection based on Morris. Regarding claim 19, the Examiner finds that Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 8 Morris discloses the second table on page 5 (i.e., RFC_READ_TABLE) as non-executable source data and that this table is translated into command language commands that are executable as shown in Figures 1 and 3 on pages 2 and 3. Ans. 10. The Examiner clarifies that the data from columns CUSTOMER_TANRED are directed toward a remote call function (RFC) of the RFC_CUSTOMER_GET and the data is converted into columns “toward a remote function call RFC as shown in Figure 1.” See Ans. 18. Appellants argue Morris discloses returning data to a user using a RFC or business object application programmers interface (BAPI). App. Br. 13-14. Appellants also state in Figure 3 Morris has a direct transfer activity screen for mapping data from a source provided by SAP to a target provided by Lotus Notes. App. Br. 14. In Appellants’ view, these activities are not translating source data into commands that are executable as recited. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19 by finding that Morris discloses a processing unit operative to translate non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. First, the RFC_READ_TABLE or a Remote Function Call (RFC) reads requested fields from existing tables under SAP and turns these fields into text (e.g., CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text) - CUSTOMER_TTELFX (Text) in Figure 1). Morris 2, 5. The fields are placed into the DATA table as one column and one record (e.g., Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 9 CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text) in Figure 1). See id. Some commands are thus issued to place the fields into the DATA table. However, there is no discussion of translating the data in the fields from the existing tables (e.g., non-executable source data) into commands that are executable. Second, Morris states RFC_CUSTOMER_GET or a SAP’s RFC returns a table CUSTOMER_T with names, customer numbers, and address data. See Morris 1-2. Specifically, Morris states the RFC called RFC_CUSTOMER_GET is specified, the pop-up button next to the word, “Table,” is used to the select the metadata from the RFC_CUSTOMER_GET you wish to work with (e.g., CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text)), and the table CUSTOMER_T returns the desired metadata. See Morris 2. Thus, while source data (e.g., CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text)) is selected and a command is called or executed as a result (e.g., RFC_CUSTOMER_GET), Morris does not necessarily disclose that returned metadata is the result of translating the data in CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text) into command language commands that are executable by routine, such as the RFC call. Cited Figure 3 (Ans. 10) also fails to show that commands that are the result of the RFC call in Figure 1 are necessarily executable. The Examiner refers to the “Activity Execution Options” tab for support. See Morris 3. However, Morris does not elaborate on this tab’s function (see id.), and we cannot state that Morris necessarily shows how this tab would convert or translate any non-executable source data in Morris into command language commands that are executable as recited in claim 19. While the Examiner finds that Morris performs the recited translation (see Ans. 18), we find that the evidence of record concerning Morris falls Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 10 short of demonstrating a processing unit that is necessarily “operative to translate non-executable source data into command language commands that are executable.” Morris therefore fails to anticipate this limitation in claim 19. Morris may demonstrate a likelihood or probability to convert non-executable source data (e.g., the CUSTOMER_TANRED (Text) data) into commands. Yet, we are constrained by the rejection formulated under § 102 to find that Morris does not necessarily disclose the above-quoted claim language in claim 19. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We pass no judgement whether such a feature is obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Nor will we engage in such an inquiry in the first instance on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of (1) independent claim 19 and (2) dependent claims 20-35 for similar reasons. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects: (1) claims 4 and 40 over Bott and Upton based on § 103 and (2) claims 18, 36, and 54 over Bott, Chan, and Microsoft based on § 103. For each of these rejections, Appellants refer to the previous arguments of Bott related to claims 1, 19, and 37. App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 7. The issues before us, then, are the same as those in connection with representative claim 1, and we refer Appellants to our previous discussion. We also need not address whether Upton, Chan, or Microsoft cure any alleged deficiencies in Bott. Id. Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 11 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-17, 37-39, and 41-53 under § 102 or claims 4, 18, 36, 40, and 54 under § 103. Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19 and 35 based on Bott, but erred in rejecting claims 19 and 35 based on Morris. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-34 under § 102. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-54 is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc Appeal 2009-011869 Application 10/847,175 12 EVIDENCE APPENDIX MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 111 (5th ed. 2002). AJAY M. RAMBHIA, XML DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS DESIGN 61 (2002). Tali Garsiel, How Browsers Work, Behind the Scenes of Modern Web Browsers 1-26, available at http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm. Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. 10/847,175 Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination Kai-Michael Roesner et al Examiner Khanh Pham Art Unit 2100 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Name Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 111 (5th ed. 2002). V AJAY M. RAMBHIA, XML DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS DESIGN 61 (2002). W Tali Garsiel, How Browsers Work, Behind the Scenes of Modern Web Browsers 1-26, available at http://taligarsiel.com/Projects/howbrowserswork1.htm. X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Delete Last PagelAdd A Page